Whether the Constitution or laws require a trial court to fabricate facts outside sworn testimony to justify a warrantless entry

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED eee nee eevee 4™ AMENDMENT CLAIM Testimony giving during the November 12,2013, Suppression hearing record demonstrated NO exigent circumstances existed and NO attempt was made to secure a search warrant, as the Law requires absent any established exigent circumstance. Does the Constitution or Laws require a trial court fabricate facts outside sworn testimony to justify a warrantless entry? Does the Constitution or Laws require the Northern District of Ohio or the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals completely ignore these contradicting facts because petitioner was only given an opportunity to have his fourth amendment claim heard? 6" AND 14™ AMENDMENT CLAIM The Northern District of Ohio and the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals both agreed petitioners’ ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, is frivolous and holds no merit. . Does the Constitution or Laws require appellate counsel fail to raise a claim of Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct or Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel, on Direct Appeal, when , petitioners grand jury and trial record demonstrated the State and Trial counsel intentionally . allowed “Officers” witnesses testify to evidence that was knowingly not submitted, or tested, not presented or even a participant within the avoided BCI Lab Report? 4,